17 Years Ago Today: "I was always willing to be reasonable until I had to be unreasonable"
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (64)
sorted by:
I am aware. But I'm not always looking for what is most persuasive to the people who make claims that I find to be ridiculous.
It is special pleading. When you say that it's OK because it's 'just' property destruction, how am I supposed to read it, other than what it says? Am I supposed to imagine some sort of qualifiers that aren't there, but that I assume should be there? Based on what?
So you are just being obnoxious and not attempting to have some greater purpose of "holding a mirror up." That's fine if that's your point. Our side is better when we are filled with basic bitch bickering over nothing, after all. I'm sure everyone doesn't side more with Impossible1's psychotic delusion rants after your 23rd whine fest with him.
Tthe best way, and the way I would have done it, is going "what makes him different than BLM if its just property?" Then you say that.
You see how that says the exact same thing as what you tried to say, but invites them to better explain themselves to you (and everyone reading who might think the same) while also giving out those qualifiers they did not originally have and creates a much more neutral discussion.
The only difference between then being, you wouldn't get to call someone a moron and relish people hating you.
It's not one or the other. In this case, I wasn't even trying to be obnoxious, but rather to call someone out.
Yes, asking people questions that they cannot answer is generally quite a good strategy.
I neither mind nor relish it.